Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

THE USE OF JIGSAW TECHNIQUE IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN WRITING A DESCRIPTIVE TEXT (A Quasi-Experimental Research at One Senior High School in West Bandung) Retna Oktaviani Zahra* [email protected] *Graduated in December 2013 from English Education Study Program of Indonesia University of Education

Abstract: This research was aimed at investigating whether there is any improvement of students’ writing ability in writing a descriptive text by the implementation of Jigsaw technique and discover students’ response to the use of Jigsaw technique in teaching writing descriptive text. This research employed quantitative method in the forms of quasi-experimental design. This quantitative research involved two classes of tenth grade at one senior high school in West Bandung in which one class was assigned as the experimental group and the other one was assigned as the control group. The instruments used were pretest, post-test, and questionnaire of attitudes towards the Jigsaw technique. The post-test scores of the two groups were compared by using Independent t-test. The results showed the significance value was lower than the significance level which was 0.043 < 0.05. It meant that the Jigsaw technique improved students’ ability in writing a descriptive text. Based on students’ attitudes toward the use of Jigsaw technique, the findings indicated that most of students rated the used technique moderately positive. Nearly all of students agreed that Jigsaw technique is able to improve their writing skill, advance their grammatical mastery, increase their vocabulary mastery, expand their creative thinking, and improve their presentation skill as well as their confidence. Keywords: Jigsaw technique, cooperative learning, writing skill

Introduction Writing plays the important role in

as well as cognitive process. As

English language education. Foong

stated in school based curriculum

(1999) claimed that learning to write

(KTSP), teaching English in High

is important and useful for language

School is

and

students’ communication skill both

rhetorical

practice

for

communication, and as a discovery

aimed

at

developing

in oral or written skill in order to

64

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

achieve the level of informational. In

class somehow contributed to the

other word, the high school students

students’ less motivation in learning

are expected to comprehend and

English especially in writing skill.

create the various functional text,

This kind of phenomenon also turns

monologue, and essay in form of

to be one of those obstacles that

procedure,

recount,

make the students are difficult in

item,

mastering writing skill. It is difficult

hortatory

because learners are expected to

descriptive,

narrative,

report,

analytical

exposition,

exposition,

spoof,

discussion,

review,

news

explanation,

express their

and

public

efficiently in writing form. The

speaking. In fact, based on the

argument was also supported by

observation that the writer has done

Tangpermpoon (2008) which stated

at one Senior High School in

that writing is considered as the most

Bandung, the teacher tended to focus

difficult skill for language learners

on teaching grammar which was not

because they need to have a certain

covered in KTSP. The teacher only

amount of L2 background knowledge

explained

the

about the rhetorical organizations,

exercise book and asked the students

appropriate language use or specific

to do the exercises. The technique

lexicon

that the teacher implemented in the

communicate with their readers.

Literature Review

(Brown, 2001, p. 336). Considering

the

materials

in

ideas

which

they

clearly and

want

to

According to Brown (2001, p.

the purpose of writing is part of an

335)., writing is the product of

overall structure that need carefully

thinking,

chosen

drafting,

and

revising

to

avoid

inappropriate

procedures that requires specialized

readers’ response. As Harmer (2007)

skills Writing is the process of

stated that the first thing the authors

putting ideas down on paper to

should

transform thoughts into words, to

considering

sharpen the main ideas, to give them

writing since it will influence not

structure and coherent organization

only the type of text they wish to

65

do

before

writing

is

the purpose of their

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

create, but also the language they

content, then they are expected to

use, and the information they choose

discuss and argue with each other to

to include. The purpose of writing

assess

itself depends on who the target

knowledge. In addition, this method

readers are. According to Lombardo

offers the opportunity for students to

(2010), there are five purposes of

work in a group cooperatively, and

writing. First is to inform, which is

then

giving the fact as objective as

interdependently and

possible. Second is to explain, which

feedback from others.

is explaining how something works

each

allow

other’s

groups

current

to

work

finally get

One of the techniques of

and why something happened. Third

cooperative

is to persuade, which is convincing

Jigsaw

the readers to be in the same

Aronson

perspective with the writer. Fourth is

cooperative structure commonly used

to entertain, which is entertaining the

in high school is Jigsaw technique,

readers with the enjoyable writing.

because it is considered as the

Fifth is to

which is

efficient way to learn the material in

revealing something about a subject

peers. Jigsaw technique was chosen

as detail as possible.

thoughtfully to be used in improving

describe,

learning

technique. (2000),

method

is

According

to

technique

or

Teaching writing skill to non-

students’ writing ability especially in

native students is a very challenging

writing a descriptive text. Jigsaw

task

because

technique is an efficient way to learn

developing this skill takes a long

the course material in a cooperative

time to see the improvement. Hence,

learning style which encourages

the cooperative learning method was

listening, writing, engagement, and

considered to be used in teaching

empathy by giving each member of

writing to non-native speaker. As

the group an essential part to play in

stated by Slavin (1995), cooperative

the

learning is a teaching method in

2000). The technique involves three

which students work in small groups

aspects.

to help one another to learn academic

comprised of five or six students are

for

the

teachers,

66

academic

First,

activity (Aronson,

groups

that

are

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

formed.

Each

student

then

Third, Jigsaw technique demands

assigned a part of the material in

students to develop their cognitive

which they are expected to become

skills

an “expert”. Until this stage, students

evaluation,

will have the opportunity to discuss

information.

their areas of expertise with other

technique provides opportunities for

students who are not in their original

students to develop their presentation

groups, yet who have worked on the

and questioning technique as a result

same part of the material. These

of a strong motivation to ensure that

discussion groups are known as

everyone in the group gets all the

“expert

information in order to complete the

groups.”

is

Finally,

each

student presents a report of what he

of

analysis, and

comparison, synthesis

Fourth,

of

Jigsaw

task or quiz.

or she has learned about his or her

The

Jigsaw

technique

in

topic to the rest of the student’s

particular has been proved not only

original group.

to improve intergroup relations, but also

According to Kessler (1992)

to

increase

students’

there are four benefits of Jigsaw

achievement as well, as supported by

technique

second

some studies. In the Austin schools,

language classroom. First, Jigsaw

empirical results showed that Jigsaw

technique allows students to work in

children liked their peers and liked

groups which have different races

school

and cultures. It is believed not only

traditional classrooms did.

can facilitate students to gain trust

Jigsaw children in the Austin schools

and acceptance across races and

had fewer absences, higher self-

cultures,

support

esteem and empathy, and better

minority students in achieving their

academic performance (Aronson &

academic success. Second, Jigsaw

Patnoe, 1997 cited in Perkins &

technique

the

Tagler, n.d). The technique also can

communicative approach in language

be a useful addition to individualized

teaching, since it offers a highly

learning

interactive

individualized

especially

but

also

for

can

supports

learning

experience.

67

more

than

children

programs. instruction

in The

When utilizes

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

independent

study,

works in

design, and the experimental and the

reducing the child's opportunity to

control group (National Center for

communicate

friends

Technology Innovation, 2003). In

during teaching and learning process

this research, the experimental group

(Aronson, n.d). In addition, the

was

research was done by Agustina

technique while the control group

(2001) with the title “The Role of

was

Jigsaw

Improving

technique. The independent variable

Students’ Reading Comprehension

of the research is Jigsaw technique,

Skill at SMPN 3 Pasuruan” showed a

while the dependent variable is

good result.

students’

with

Technique

it

their

in

There was not

a

taught

taught

using

the

using

writing

Jigsaw

conventional

scores.

The

significant difference between the

independent variable of the research

pre-test and post-test in the control

is

group. According to the result, the

dependent

Jigsaw

to

writing scores. The population of the

reading

research was the first grader of one

comprehension skill. Agustina also

senior high school in West Bandung,

suggested the other researchers to do

whereas the samples were only two

the similar research using Jigsaw

classes, those were X IPA 1 as the

technique, but with different skill

experimental group and X IPS 3 as

like writing and speaking. Therefore,

the

this research will experiment Jigsaw

experimental research employed two

technique in improving students’

instruments to collect the data. The

writing skill at one High School in

first instrument was the test which

West Bandung.

was divided into pre-test and post-

technique

improve

was

students’

able

Jigsaw

control

technique, variable

group.

while is

the

students’

This

quasi-

test. Both pre-test and post-test were analyzed to discover whether or not

Methodology This

study

used

quasi

the Jigsaw technique is effective in

experimental design, a typical true

teaching writing a descriptive text.

experimental which uses non-random

After conducting the pre-test, the

study of participants, pre-post-test

experimental group was given the

68

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

treatment which consisted of four

5, in which the maximum score of

meetings. In every meeting, students

four aspects is 20. However, the

had to write a descriptive text based

score range was changed for the sake

on the discussed topic. The second

of the easiness in calculating the

instrument was questionnaire. The

obtained score. The point of each

data

through

aspect is multiplied by 5, so that the

conducting the questionnaire only in

point ranges from 5 to 25, in which

the experimental group in order to

the maximum score of four aspects is

discover

100.

were

collected

the

students’

attitude,

opinion, and about the use of Jigsaw technique

in

teaching

writing

Data Presentation and Discussion

descriptive text.

In order to prove that the two

The Clear criteria in assessing

means of both groups were not

students’ works are needed in order

significantly different, independent t-

to generate valid scores. Qualifying

test was implemented. Before t-test

this need, the scoring rubric that was

was implemented, the pretest scores

proposed by Brown (1994) was

of both experimental and control

adapted in this study. The rubric that

group must be approximately normal

was used to evaluate students’

and homogeneous. Therefore, the

written works in this study covers

calculation of the normal distribution

some aspects that absolutely must be

and homogeneity of variance test

contained in every written works,

was implemented to the two groups’

such as content, vocabulary, generic

scores. Table 1 demonstrates the

structures and language features. The

pretest mean scores of both groups.

point of each aspect ranges from 1 to Table 1 The pre-test scores Group

N

Mean

Standard Deviation

Experimental

20

58.25

10.91534

Control

20

58.05

9.21369

69

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

control and experimental groups are

was employed to check whether or

homogeneous or equal.

not the pre-test scores of both groups were

normally

distributed.

The independent t-test was

The

implemented to see whether there is

results show that Z score at the

a significant difference between the

experimental pre-test is 0.914 and Z

scores of experimental and control

score at the control pre-test is 0.806.

group

The

of

value of means in both groups for

experimental (0.373) is higher than

equal variances assumed is 0.950. It

the level significance (0.05). Equally,

is more than level of significance

the significance value of control

0.05 (0.950 > 0.05). Therefore, the

group (0.535) is higher than level of

(H0) null hypothesis was accepted. In

significance (0.05). In other words,

other words, the means of the two

both groups’ score are normally

groups are not significantly different.

significance

value

distributed.

pre-test.

The

The

post-test

significance

scores

were

Levene’s statistics in SPSS 20

analyzed to see whether or not there

for windows was used to analyze the

is any improvement in students’ final

homogeneity of variance of control

scores after the treatment. The

and experimental group’s pre-test

following table shows the result of

score. From the SPSS output results,

the post-test from the statistical

it represents that the Levene’s test is

computation:

0.351. The significance value is 0.578. It is higher than the level of significance, 0.05 (0.578 > 0.05). It can be said that the variances of the Table 2 The Post-test Score Group

N

Mean

Standard Deviation

Experimental

20

64.1

9.03487

Control

20

58.35

7.52172

70

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

The Table 1.2 shows that the

explained that the significance value

mean for the experimental group is

of means in both groups for equal

64.1, while the mean for control

variances assumed is 0.043. It is

group is 58.35. It is directly stated

lower than level of significance 0.05

that the means of the experimental

(0.043 < 0.05). It also shows that tobt

and the control group are different. It

(2.090) is higher than t crit (2.021) (see

can be seen that the means from both

the appendix II). Therefore, the (H0)

experimental and control groups

null hypothesis was rejected. In other

from post-test score are different.

words, the means of the two groups

The

result

of

calculating

the

are significantly different. It meant

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows that

that

the

treatment

which

Z score at the experimental post-test

implemented in the experimental

is 0.913 and Z score at the control

group,

pre-test is 0.752. The significance

students’

value of experimental (0.375) is

descriptive text.

significantly ability

was

improved in

writing

higher than the level of significance

The calculation of effect size

(0.05). Similarly, the significance

was conducted to prove the influence

value of control group (0.623) is

of independent

higher than the level of significance

dependent variable and to discover

(0.05).

how efficient the treatment worked.

The

of

The data were taken from the

The

calculation of Independent t-test on

significance value is 0.318. It is

post-test in which the t obt is 2.090 and

bigger than the level of significance,

the df

0.05 (0.318 > 0.05). It can be

calculated, the result shows that r

concluded that the variances of the

value is 0.321. The converting r

control and experimental groups are

value into the effect size table (see

homogeneous or equal.

table 3.2), the obtained value shows

Levene’s

data test

calculation

variable on the

was

1.024.

Based on the statistical analysis from

the

independent

is 38. After the data was

medium effect size.

calculation

of

the

The paired t-test was used to

t-test,

can

be

analyse the difference between the

it

71

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

means of pre-test and post-test in

improve their presentation skill as

experimental

well as their confidence.

group.

From

the

obtained data, it is found that the

The obtained data from the

significance of correlation value

findings proved that students were

from the pre-test and the post-test is

able to write a descriptive text. The

0.001. It is lower than 0.05. Thus,

students were found out of being able

(H0) null hypothesis was rejected

to express their ideas and write more

because there is a significance

than they had done before the study

difference between pre-test scores

was carried out. Their works also

and post-test scores. It means that the

showed more clear description of the

data of the pre-test and the post-test

topic. The implementation of Jigsaw

are dependent.

technique gave certain advantages,

test

The result of the Dependent t-

by examining and discussing the

and

given pictures with their group mates

the

effect

size

test

strengthened the conclusion that the

in

new technique worked for improving

obtained

students’ achievement in writing.

descriptive information such as the

The

questionnaire

was

their

expert

groups.

They

more

detail

and

colours, the position, the shape,

conducted in the experimental class

and any other things of the object.

after the post-test was given in the

In the language aspect, the

same day. The Jigsaw technique as

improvement can be clearly seen in

the treatment was proved as an

the tenses and vocabulary use. As

effective

making

cited in Knapp and Watkins (2005),

students easier to learn and to master

there are many language features that

the material. Nearly all of students

are covered

agreed that Jigsaw technique is able

namely

to

relational

technique

improve

their

in

writing

skill,

in descriptive text

simple verbs,

present

tense,

action

verbs,

advance their grammatical mastery,

adjectives, adverbs, and adverbial

increase their vocabulary mastery,

phrase. From the students’ writing in

expand their creative thinking, and

the post-test, all of students used simple present tense in their writing.

72

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

Despite many grammatical errors

The use of Jigsaw technique

were found in students’ post-test

increased the interaction among the

writing,

finally

students. The technique also enabled

understood that a descriptive text is

them to correct each other. It was

written in simple present tense. In

indicated

terms of vocabulary use, the students

participation

used more words compared to their

process which instructed them to

work on the pre-test. Amongst those

work in two kinds of groups which

language features that are covered in

were home group and expert group.

descriptive text, they used more

Basically, all the given tasks would

adjectives to make their description

never be done and their writing skill

more alive than before.

would never be improved if the

the

students

from

the

during

students’ the

whole

The Jigsaw technique is not

students did not participate during

only stimulated the students’ interest,

the whole process. This finding is in

but also attracting and increasing

line with Aronson (2000) who stated

their attention. This was reflected on

that the Jigsaw technique facilitates

their

the

students’ interaction in the class

instruction and the whole learning

enabling the students to value each

process. Their enthusiasm led them

other as contributors. Thus, this

to be serious in discussing the subject

technique is also less threatening for

matter

writing

many students, and it can increase

also

the amount of students’ participation

enthusiasm

and

activities.

doing Their

toward

their attention

reflected the students’ degree of

in the classroom.

seriousness. Almost all the students paid

attention

to

the

teacher’s

Conclusions

explanation and instruction. They were

actively

the

the Jigsaw technique was effective in

learning process, making comments

improving students’ writing scores.

or

The result from independent t-test on

asking

involved

questions

in

This research suggested that

about

the

instruction and the given tasks.

post-test showed that there was a significant different between the

73

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

post-test means of the experimental

and there are no students who can

group and those who were in the

neglect their responsibility.

control group. The result found out that the significant value is bigger

References

than r critical. Therefore, the null

Aronson, E. (2000). Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.jigsaw.org/ Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Carroll, E. (2007). Individual and Group Contingencies in Cooperative Learning at the Collegiate Level. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(3), 298-306.

hypothesis was rejected. Moreover, based on the obtained data from questionnaire, the Jigsaw technique was found to be potential to provide better learning when compared with the conventional method. Nearly all of students

agreed

that

Jigsaw

technique is able to improve their writing

skill,

advance

their

grammatical mastery, increase their vocabulary mastery, expand their creative thinking, and improve their

Depdiknas. (2006). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Media Makmur Mandiri. Foong, K. P. (1999). Teaching Writing: A Look at Purposes, Writing Tasks, and Implications. The English Teacher, 28, 2-5. Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Pearson Longman. Innovation, N. C. (2003). Quasi Experimental Study. Retrieved from: www.nationaltechcenter.org/in dex.php/products/at-researchmatter/quasi-experimentalstudy.html

presentation skill as well as their confidence. Therefore, it is recommended that the technique would be suitable to be implemented in the medium and small class in which the students come from different racial and ethnic. In addition, it would be better if each expert group consists of only four

or

five

students

with

combination of high-motivated and low-motivated students, so that the divided

responsibility

for

each

student within group would be fair

74

Journal of English and Education 2014, 2(1), 64-75

Kessler, C. (1992). Jigsaw Integrating Language and Content. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rc t=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web &cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQ FjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2F journals.lib.byu.edu%2Fspc%2 Findex.php%2FTESL%2Fartic le Knapp, P. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar, Technologies for Teaching and Assesing Writing. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Lombardo, A. (2010). Purpose for Writing. Retrieved from: http://www.slideboom.com/pre sentations/47137/SPI-0701.3.1pURPOSE-FOR-Writing Perkins, D. V. and Tagler, M. J. (n.d). Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa =t&rct=j&q=Perkins%2C+D avid+V.+%26+Tagler%2C+M ichael+J.+%28n.d%29.+Jigsa w+Classroom&source=web&c d=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFj

AA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftea chpsych.orgw.pdf Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. NJ: Prentice Hall Tangpermoon, T. (2008). Integrated Approaches to Improve Students Writing skills for English Major Students. ABAC Journal Vol 28 No. 2, 1-9.

75